NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 9631611" data-attributes="member: 2013">I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. I am using US terms here as that is where I am based; other legal systems likely have analogous but not identical terms (in the UK, I believe they use the term "Fair Dealing" where the U.S. uses "Fair Use").The issue is that while you cannot copyright mathematical functions or game mechanics, a particular expression of those things (i.e., the words used to describe them) CAN be copyrighted.Whether or not you replicate text word for word, if you base something you are writing on someone else's particular copyrighted expression of those uncopyrightable concepts, your work may be considered a "derivative work" and thus infringing upon copyright.I said "may be" - but the salient question you probably should be asking is "who determines if my work is a derivative work?"The answer is: "Not you." Now, you may not think your work is derivative. But if a copyright holder disagrees, they have the power to sue you and compel you to come to court. What you think doesn't matter. What they think doesn't matter. The real answer is "courts decide if a work is derivative."If your work is found to be derivative, the burden of proof shifts to you (or more likely, your lawyer) and you must raise a defense of why your derivative work is not infringing (if it is both derivative AND infringing, you can be held liable for monetary damages). You have to prove one of the following is true:1. The copyright of the work of which your derivative work is derivative has expired and that work has entered the public domain (does not apply in this case as the 2024 5E rules are 90+ years away from expiry).2. Your use of the work is covered by the doctrine of Fair Use. (This is not likely for most monster supplements for reasons I won't get into here)3. You have explicit (written) permission from the copyright holder to create a derivative work (usually in the form of a license)4. "Estoppel" applies - that is, you received assurances from WotC that you would not be sued for your use - they can't later come back and change their mind (this is probably the Fan Content Policy <a href="https://company.wizards.com/en/legal/fancontentpolicy" target="_blank">Fan Content Policy | Wizards of the Coast</a> ) - in this case the work is still technically "infringing" but you cannot be held liable for it so I would probably lump this in with #3To come back to your original question, "what is the between me using the 3.5 SRD under OGL, the A5E SRD under ORC, the 5.1 SRD under CC, or no SRD at all and just not replicating [any] text?" the answer is:A. Using the 3.5 SRD under OGL, the A5E SRD under ORC, the 5.1 SRD under CC allows you to point to explicit permission (under the terms of the license) as an affirmative defense for why your derivative work is not infringing. This means you will not be in danger of being liable for paying monetary damages (and/or be subject to court-ordered sanctions).B. [Using] no SRD at all and just not replicating [any] text does NOT allow you to point to explicit permission as an affirmative defense for why your derivative work is not infringing. In this case you must hope to rely on Fair Use doctrine or hope the copyright is expired or point to a statement that they wouldn't sue you to invoke estoppel (all very unlikely) or be liable for paying monetary damages (and/or be subject to court-ordered sanctions).In short (maybe not so short):Under Option A,  you publish your monster sourcebook with little worry as it will be trivially easy for a lawyer to defend you if you are ever sued, and such a defense is likely to be relatively inexpensive as the outcome of the case will be obvious to a judge and you may be able to get a summary judgement. This is a very-low risk, low-liability (assuming you adhere to the license terms) exercise.Under Option B, you publish your monster sourcebook with a huge legal cloud hanging over your head. If you are sued, you are likely to have a very large legal expense for some combination of your defense lawyer, a pre-trial settlement with your accuser, and/or liability damages after you lose the suit. This is a potentially high-risk, high-liability exercise. The amount of risk and liability you invoke in this case is based on several factors, including how successful your book is (i.e., if the copyright holder notices you) and how litigious the copyright holder might be (and not just when they discover your book, but at any later time in for the entire duration of the copyright if the copyright changes hands - including a leadership change at a corporate copyright holder). If you release your monster book in 2025, you have opened the possibility for expensive litigation through about 2120 (at least in the US, where copyright terms for a corporate entity like WotC are 95 years from publication and my MM copy says the first printing was in February 2025).Your appetite for risk and legal trouble will likely determine whether or not you see Option B as a significant deterrent.Given most 3rd-party publishers opt for Option A, it should be self-evident how they view the risk of Option B.</blockquote>

Verification